Talk:Hurricane Norbert (2014)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering the length of this article, it is unjustified.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just because a subject is notable does not mean it deserves a one-paragraph-long article. This should be stuck back into the season article and redirected again. If it gets to a somewhat reasonable length (this is most certainly not reasonable), then an article should be recreated. Dustin (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and expand it yourself. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should that be my task? The article shouldn't even exist (yet), and for the time being I (and apparently no one else) has time to do that. At some point, I plan on adding information about the storm's meteorological history, but only to the section of the season article. My point is, you shouldn't create unnecessary articles, even if the subject is notable. The article is unnecessary until editors have sufficiently expanded the relevant section in the season article as to make it necessary. Dustin (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right in a sense, I just think merging is sometimes taken the easy way out. You have to draw the line somewhere though. If Hurricane Katrina did not have sufficient information in its article (hypothetically), would that be merged? FTR, a user agreed to do the MH off-site. I have every intention of keeping impact up to date, and within an edit or two, this will likely approach the 10kb banner. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still wanna merge? Record-breaking flooding in Arizona not enough?—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 22:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect a 10kb article everytime we make a new page. That's why there are stubs.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 22:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are way too late to the party at this point, but in any case... If it really can all easily fit in the season article (no longer applicable to this article), I do not care how notable it is, there is not a point in having an article. If the subject storm is truly notable, it will outgrow its section anyway, so there is no need for concern. Having a redirect to the section is enough for those scenarios. The only possible loss I can conceive is that pictures would not be as available, but Wikipedia isn't here for the pictures anyway. Dustin (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if Katrina had a short article, it should not exist? I'm sorry, but I'd by lying if I said that is not the most unreasonable comment I have ever read on this site in my 6 years on here. I agree that this discussion should not have happened. That whole outgrown its season section thing that Hink and I have reharshed over and over works in 99.5% of all cases (and works extremely well when we have a hurricane approaching land), but with an upper-end storm like Katrina, people are more likely to notice it's existence through an actual article. I agree this discussion was way out of line. I knew what I was doing and had full intents of expanding it. Next time, Assume good faith. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but maybe you are the one who needs to assume good faith. Why on Earth would you make such an accusation? I never assumed bad faith. You always make those accusations whenever I disagree with you. Regardless of how reasonable you consider my previous statement to have been, I take offense at these accusations. As quoted from WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism". I have the right to disagree with you, and just because I do doesn't mean I am assuming bad faith. Dustin (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You assumed bad faith by thinking I was pointlessly creating a stub. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think this discussion is complete. In the future, let's maybe wait a bit longer for judgement, both whether to make the article in the first place (yesterday the storm had barely done anything) as well as questions on the article's existence, since remnants can lead do damaging impacts as was the case here. I suggest you all let this discussion settle, so we can focus on improving the article. No need to say anything else about the above. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Dustin (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was article worthy yesterday since it came fairly close to Baja. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Todo?[edit]

I labeled it start, but I also wanted to bring up a discussion. The remnants of both Dolly and Norbert are producing rainfall in the southwest United States right now. Given that there is no article for Dolly or for the SW US flooding, I believe that information could/should be here. Hence the rating. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to make this current. The flooding is ongoing right now literally. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Thanks for being willing to expand it. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Arizona flood[edit]

Support split - The 2014 Arizona flood produced a record setting rainfall of close to 3 inches of precipitation on the area, breaking the old record set in 1933, and is not covered very well in Hurricane Norbert (2014). On a side note, would anyone be so kind as to comment on the potential creation of Richie Kotzen discography, Nonpoint discography and Loverboy discography? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This article can handle all of the information quite well. If there ends up being too much Mexican info, or info in other US states, then the Arizona bit could be split off, but no need right now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Not enough potential content for it to be split off as of right now. And how is it not well-covered here? YE Pacific Hurricane 21:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The flood isn't really over yet, and there's not enough for a split. Also, please tell us how it is not covered, and stop spamming.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 23:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – No explanation is given for why this article does not sufficiently cover the flooding in the southwestern United States. Any additional content, at least for now, should just continue to be added to the impacts section. Dustin (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article does not cover subject of Arizona flooding well. Flooding significant enough for the state of Arizona. NewJibaJabba (talk) 4:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Norbert (2014). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Norbert (2014). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Norbert (2014). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Norbert_(2014)&oldid=1202851673"